reform, there is emany reforms in the underlying bill, and to the provision that would say that you'd have to verify if you're an individual business that you can't get financing, i've read the senator's amendment. i'm not sure how you would prove that. it's not clear from the legislation. does that mean you'd have to survey every time the ex-im program was implemented for a business, say, let's say scafco in spokane, washington, a grain silo producer that is selling silos in many different parts of the world. every time they wanted to get financing for one of those silos, what would they do? petition five banks in a region? would they petition a hundred banks in a region? would they -- and i just want people to understand what that competition is like. let's preand then scafco which i made makes large grain elevators and selling products all over the world and is one of the world leaders and we have a

ex-im bank requirement that says they have to prove that there is no financing available. now somebody else in that country and they're selling a lot of product in south america, in africa, in asia, somebody says i can get financing for the product out of russia or i can get financing for the product out of china and i don't have that same requirement, so i'm not going to buy from you, i'm going to buy from them. that's what you're doing. you're basically hamstringing american competitors in an international marketplace by not allowing them the financing tools. of course the bank has to show they can't get financing but this puts an undue bird on these individuals that they are not going to be able because of the language and thousand how -- and how vague it is, how are they going to prove there isn't someone there. instead of hamstringing american businesses, why not allow the

american businesses under this legislation that as my colleague from south carolina said, been around for decades, been very effective, and we're including more transparency. so i urge my colleagues to defeat the corker amendment because of its requirements on capital ratio that they don't need and secondly, on on the ability to prohibit the financing based on a clause that i don't even know how it could be met, and my colleagues will understand from states that are using this program that it would be very, very hard for our businesses to continue to compete with such a requirement. i'd also like to say that i know my colleague, senator lee, was here earlier, and the lee amendment in my opinion basically would out-and-out defund the ex-im bank financing program. i get some of my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle believe we shouldn't have this program. again, i think it's been a very important tool for u.s. companies to win in their sales of u.s. products overseas, and as i said, creates thousands and thousands of jobs. so i do not think senator lee's amendment, which basically would abolish the bank as of september 30 of 2013, is a good way to go. so i i thank the president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i now call up the vitter amendment number 2103, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes amendment numbered 2103. mr. vitter: i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: this amendment is born of a real frustration that a lot of folks have faced over

the last few years, particularly in my state of louisiana. as, you know, mr. president, we've had a rough time, particularly following the the b.p. disaster. first there was the environmental disaster which was a real shock to our system and our ecology, but second, and even perhaps more lasting impact, there was the economic hit that was magnified enormously when the obama administration in my opinion overreacted and instituted a full-blown moratorium on production -- drilling, rather, in the gulf of mexico. now, that formal moratorium was ended in late 2010, but a de facto moratorium continued for many months and even now there is a real permit logjam that has permitting at a much lower pace than before the b.p. disaster.

this is a broader problem because at least off the coast of louisiana we are producing some energy. in many, many other places of the country where we have an abundance of energy we're not allowed to get it because this federal government particularly under this obama administration puts well over 90% of our domestic resources off limits. in the midst of everything that was going on in the gulf, in the midst of that moratorium, shutting down jobs in the gulf of mexico, president obama traveled to brazil, and he said that the united states wanted to be a tremendous partner and cheerleader of the development of brazil's offshore industry. now, mr. president, i have to tell you that was like rubbing salt in the wound of tens of thousands of oil field workers and others who are suffering

because of the obama administration policy here in this country really discouraging energy development. the way president obama proposed to be a strong supporter and partner and cheerleader of brazilian offshore development was through an ex-im bank loan and there are many of these sorts of loans. again, in august, 2009, talking about brazil, the case i mentioned, "the wall street journal" reported an editorial that -- quote -- "the u.s. is going to lend billions of dollars to brazil's state-owned oil company, petrobrass to finance exploration of the huge offshore delivery in brazil's oil field near rio de janeiro" -- close quote. again the ex-im bank provided a $2 billion loan to aid brazilian

oil production and that's what president obama was cheering and encouraging and making happen. it's happened other places as well. again, the ex-im bank specifically approved a $2.84 billion loan and loan guarantee to a subsidiary of colombia's national oil company. this money was intended to expand and upgrade an oil refinely ri in colombia. in 2011, the ex-im bank again authorized $1 billion for pemex, mexico's national oil and gas company. so here we have this federal government through the ex-im bank financing energy production overseas at the same time as this federal government tries to shut down and make difficult a lot of that activity here at home. that's the frustration that produced this amendment number 2103. and this amendment is simple.

it simply says the ex-im bank is not going to provide those loans or loan guarantees related to fossil fuel development in foreign countries if there are similar projects in this country that aren't getting comparable help. it's not suggesting that the ex-im bank is going to participate directly in projects in this country. it simply says first things first. american jobs, american energy, american production first. so we're not going to finance the world to produce energy when we create obstacles right here at home to do the same thing. again, mr. president, the last several years have proved the need for this sort of commonsense provision in my opinion. president obama traveling to brazil, el ally whoing the development -- ballyhooing the development of their industry

while other policies substantially shut down our own here in the united states proves the need for this commonsense amendment. and i urge all of my colleagues, mr. president, republicans and democrats, to support this vitter amendment number 2103. again, very simple, very logical, pure common sense. before the ex-im bank uses u.s. taxpayer money to fund, to finance, to guarantee oil and gas and other energy development overseas in foreign countries, we're going to look here at home to see if similar projects exist, and are they getting any similar help or inducement from the federal government. i urge support of this, mr. president, in a way to move forward on in a commonsense way on this reauthorization. with that i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i suggest we dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you. i'd like to rise to address the vitter amendment numbered 2103. in speaking in opposition to that amendment, as i said, like all these amendments up for

us to vote on today i believe are detrimental to not only the export-import financing program but to the compromise worked out by the republicans and democrats in the house of representatives and the legislation that is being supported by the chamber of commerce, u.s. manufacturers, bipartisan list of governors, and many businesses across america. the reason why the vitter amendment i think is a horrible idea actually is that the amendment would basically cut or curtail american companies and their ability to compete on energy projects on a worldwide basis. that is, it would eliminate the bank's current 10% ghoal for renewable energy projects, and this is a long-standing requirement that has been incorporated into the state for an ops appropriations bill so why someone would oppose it here, i'm not sure. but as objectson who knows a lot about energy and works on energy all of the time, i can tell you

one of the goals that we have as a country should be for the united states to win in the energy debate. that is, for us to, when you look at what a tremendous market opportunity new energy solutions are for our economy, it's any -- for the worldwide economy, anywhere from $4 trillion to $6 trillion. people like to talk about the internet and all the great things of the internet. by comparison, it was somewhere between $2 trillion and $4 trillion. so this is an economic opportunity way beyond that, way beyond that. when you look at what china is doing, thee they need to invest $3.7 trillion by 2030 nold to build -- in order to build 1,300 gig awhat's of generating capacity. the chinese government leap needs to spend $3.7 trillion on energy. so my colleague from louisiana want to say let's hamstring u.s.

companies that might have a solution to some of china's energy needs from getting the appropriate financing so that they can be successful in this program. so to me, it's wrong-headed in the fact that we want to be selling, as i said, just because in the northwest we already know what china is as a market. we sell them software, we sell them airplanes, we sell them coffee, we sell them lots of things and we understand they're a market. so to curtail the solutions that u.s. companies are working on, whether it's battery technology or smart grid technology or solutions for a whole range of products, you could even say nuclear power solutions, to other clean energy source solutions, all of these things would be curtailed under the vitter amendment. so we don't want to go backwards. not only does the united states

want to be a leader in energy solutions in the united states, the united states should have the goal of being an energy winner in the international marketplace and growing jobs through selling solutions that we think can be quite successful in and around the developing world, and in china. so i would ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to make sure that we get this bank, as i said, the export-import financing program, we have about five legislative days to give the predictability and certainty american businesses would like to see in making sure u.s. manufacturers win in a global marketplace. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: i rise today in support of h.r. 2072, the export-import bank reauthorization act of 2012. after too much delay, it is time for the senate to pass this bill. the export-import bank supports nearly 209,000 jobs a year, assists thousands of american businesses and helps reduce the federal budget deficit. it shouldn't be surprising then to hear that the bank has the approval of labor unions, the chamber of commerce, the business round table, and the national association of manufacturers. indeed, the bank has is supported by a wide majority in both houses of congress.

the bill before us today passed with an overwhelming vote of 330-93 in the house of representatives. as republicans and democrats come together in support of a truly bipartisan legislation, when we passed a similar bill out of the is that the banking committee last year, it had unanimous bipartisan support. mr. president, despite the urgent need for passage of the bill, there are several republican amendments. i urge all of my colleagues to vote against those amendments and pass this bill without delay. we are at the finish line today with a bill that has already been approved in the house, and it has bipartisan support here in the senate.

unless we pass this bill, the ex-im bank's authorization will lapse on may 31, and nearly 300,000 american jobs will be at risk. thlunless we pass this bill, american exporters will be put at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors when many cases already receive far greater assistance from their own nation's export credit agencies. let's come together and pass this bipartisan bill and score a victory for the hundreds of thousands of american workers whose jobs are supported by the ex-im bank. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and support reauthorization of the export-import bank today so that we can send this bill to the president and i have it signed

into law without delay. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator pennsylvania. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment -- officerster we are in a quorum call. a senator: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. officer sphir without objection. senator ask to call up my amendment. the clerk: mr. toomey for himself and others proposes amendment 2004. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: this is an theament deals with the

reauthorization. ex-im bank. i would urge my colleagues 0 support this. i think it is a very important measure to begin the process of phasing out a very unfortunate practice that we participate in, as do many of our trading partners, which is the active taxpayer subcy did iation of exports. i want to be clear. there is a very real risk that is carried by american taxpayers and that risk is systematically under priced. the fact is the ex-im bank extends loans and provides guarantees to countries and companies buying american exports. it provides those loans and those loan guarantees under terms that are not available in the private sector. there is a reason those terms are not available in the private sector. it's because the private sector necessarily requires full compensation for whatever risk they take and there is risk in any money. the ex-im bank underprices these

loans systematically. that's why it's important. that's why it exists. that's why it does business that the private sector can't win away from the ex-im bank. it is because the ex-im bank necessarily and systematically underprices the risk that taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for. this is -- this is what many of us object to, this risk that taxpayers are forced to bear. in addition to forcing taxpayers to incur this risk, it's really quite unfair to american companies that have to compete with the foreign companies that get the subsidized financing. and this isn't just theoretical. this happens all the time. some years ago i was involved in a dispute because the ex-im bank was going to finance the acquisition of equipment by a foreign -- i think it was a chinese steel maker, which would enable them to make steel at lower prices than american steel makers would could make because

the american companies couldn't obtain the subsidy that the chinese companies could obtain through the ex-im bank. more recently is the case of delta air lines which has observed that the price they pay for jets is higher than the price paid by other countries who are operating competing routes but buying their aircraft through the subsidies of the ex-im bank. in 2008 president obama, referring to exi am bank said, "this is little more than a fund for corporate welfare." thinks think that's a little harsh. i understand why it's been extended and i understand why people feel like we have to subsidize our exports because other countries around the world subsidize theirs. in other words, if our german and french and chinese and russian taxpayers are made to take a risk in subsidizing the sale of their manufacturers, then our taxpayer ought to taker

risk. there is a logical solution to this. let's require the administration to sit down with our trading competitors and negotiate a mutual phase-out of all of these export subsidies. frankly, it's in everybody's interest. we could have a level playing field on which no taxpayers are subject to this risk, no taxpayers are asked to subsidize the sales of private companies, and i think that's what we ought to do. this is what my amendment would accomplish. my amendment says we'll go ahead with this reauthorization of the ex-im bank but the increase in the ending limit which we're currently at, the first increase, the bufn-up of $20 billion, that would be contingent upon the administration informing congress that they have begun the process of negotiating a phase-out of all export subsidies. and the second increase, because i recognize that this phase-out

wouldn't occur immediately; it would be a gradual process that would happen over time. but under my amendment, the second increase would occur only when the administration came back and informed congress that they had indeed reached an agreement with our leading trading partners on a framework that would phase out subsidization of exports. mr. president, i think this is a very sensible way to deal with the really only compelling argument i have heard in favor of forcing taxpayers to continue to take this rick, and that is, well everyone else does it, so we must. well, since that's the only reason, then let's start the process of persuading everyone else not to do it. we have tremendous leverage in both bilateral and multinational trade negotiations of all sorts. there are ways that the administration, if it makes this issue a priority, can persuade our trading partners that this is the right direction to go.

each of our trading partners has their own constituency of taxpayers who would probably rather not be forced to subsidize this process, just as we do. and i think this amendment does it in a careful fashion that allows business to continue for now, provided that we start in a different direction, a direction that you will avoid continuing to put taxpayers at rick. so i urge my colleagues to support amendment 2104 and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i'd like to speak in support of senator toomey's amendment and to point out some of the things about the ex-im bank that are important for the taxpayers to know. i know as a businessman that i could get a guaranteed loan, i would take it in a second. i don't blame companies that are

interested in lower rate financing. but as congressmen and senators and as the president of the united states our job is to protect taxpayers. and we're forgetting in this debate that when we guarantee a loan, we are signing the taxpayers' names to a loan guarantee. and in the real world, if an individual or a business guarantees a loan, that is a liability to them, a very real liability. and we're not just talking about the ex-im bank. the taxpayers of this country are now liable for about a trillion dollars worth of loans for student loans. trillions of dollars for mortgages. and other loan guarantees and insurance. we cannot continue to pass these bills without realizing that someday these bills are going to come due, and folks across this

country are going to have to pay them. we were promised when fannie mae and freddie mac were making all these throans loans it was good for the taxpayer, they were making money, we couldn't lose but the taxpayers have lost billions of dollars. and now as we continue to guarantee loans around the world in some of the countries these loans are going to now are on the watch list by moody's and other rating services because the financial situation in europe and all across the world is more and more strained. we cannot assume that this money is coming back to the taxpayer. we've probably heard already from some of the speakers that the export-import bank was started many decades ago during franklin roosevelt's administration. and there was a limit on how much could be could be lent. it was $3.5 million. but we now how government works and how government grows. the bill we're considering this

week is not in the millions, it's in the billions. and it's not three or four billion, it's $140 billion of loan guarantees to american companies that are selling overseas. now, unfortunately, that doesn't help american companies who want to sell here in america. which means much of the domestic market for our products is financed at a higher rate. it's only the rest of the world. and we're the biggest consuming market in the world. this is not an idea that we should continue in america. we're in a bidding war with china and europe to see who can subsidize the most loans at a time when all of us are broke. we need to bring this to a close. senator too many i yes -- senator toomey's amendment is a logical way to proceed. the world trade organization is set up to make sure there's a level playing field and we're not subsidizing exports and imports but this is a very real

subsidy and a very real risk to the american people. let's begin the process of taking away this excuse of why we need to subsidize them. the excuse is always we have to do it because they're doing it. but as a world trading organization, we need to take down these subsidies and phase them out. we can do that and decrease the amount of money that the american taxpayer is liable for. it's common sense. and hopefully my colleagues will support it today. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i've enjoyed listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about --

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for the next ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i've been listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about senator toomey's amendment and my colleague, you know, all about subsidies. well, it's really hard to argue about subsidies when we're talking about the ex-im bank generating $3.7 billion for u.s. taxpayers since 2005. so if this is a subsidy, we need loot more of it, because you're winning and producing jobs and actually producing money for the treasury. and this is a very important tool for to us win in a global economy. i think my colleague who spoke earlier from south carolina said it best when he talked about the manufacturing jobs that are now in that state, and what an important tool it is for using this. so i'm not one of those colleagues who basically says, oh, we should do it because other countries should do it. i'm saying that you should

recognize that that is going on, but that the united states needs to understand that there is a global marketplace for its products. and if you believe in u.s. manufacturers as i do -- and i've seen them in my state. they are winning the day in producing products and services that can beat the competition in international marketplaces. they can. i've seen grain silos, i've seen music stands and yes, i've seen airplanes. and so the question is, are we going to let a u.s. product that can beat the competition in an international marketplace lose because the purchaser of those products is looking for financing mechanisms that will help them secure the -- secure financing and purchase those products? so that's the question. so does the united states want to do those kinds of activities. i say we should be even more aggressive at it. why? because the global development of many countries that are now

buying u.s. products is going to continue to grow. i know that in my state, southwest washington and vancouver, say the second largest grain elevator in the entire world. the second largest grain elevator. and i said why do we have the second largest grain elevator in the entire world right here at the port of vancouver? they said to me because as the asian middle class rises they want to eat beef and if they want to eat beef, they have to have grain. what's wrong with the united states selling grain to asian markets because they want our product? or all these other products we've been talking about today. these are examples of products in the united states where we are actually building a product that many countries and many end customers want. we should celebrate that. and we should realize as the growing middle class around the globe increases, that there is even more opportunity for the united states to sell products

and win the day in the marketplace. so i don't know what they're talking about when they say subsidies because this has been good for the u.s. taxpayers and it's been good for our economy. now, specifically to the toomey amendment, this amendment would require us -- unnecessary conditions for helping the bank in the future and basically it would put a hold on the financing of the export-import bank until we negotiated on an international basis to terminate this kind of financing. as i said, for many states these have had great benefits. in pennsylvania, they've had the economic benefit -- this is in just 2011 -- of $1.4 billion in exports and over 9,000 jobs. so here is something that has actually created jobs, created money for the u.s. economy,

basically money back to the u.s. taxpayers that we have used to help pay down the deficit. so how is it that that's bad for us? and in the meantime, that manufacturer in pennsylvania is winning and getting his product on an international basis, and hopefully expanding his business to many, many different countries. now, we had a -- numbers on some of the other companies, some of the other examples of companies that have been helped by this in various states. these are products and services that other -- like in my state, we have visited a silo grain producer in spokane, washington, that is winning and selling its product. we visited a music stand company, manhasset music stands. you would think somebody might be able to compete with them and

beat them in the international marketplace. but in fact, they are winning the day in the international marketplace and the export-import bank helps them in doing so. so, mr. president, there's many, many examples of how this particular program is a win for taxpayers, it's a win for manufacturers, and it's a win for the u.s. economy. these amendments that are all trying to gut the export-import bank would send this back to the house when we really need to be sending it to the president's desk, giving certainty and predictability to our economy, giving certainty and predictability to a program that's existed for decades, that often has been a voice vote, instead of holding it up actually make sure that manufacturers have the opportunity and know where the financing is. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> presidential primary voting today in nebraska and oregon. as it stands mitt romney is about 178 delegates shy of the 1144 needed for the nomination. be sure to keep it on c-span for results later tonight. don't forget to go to cspan.org/campaign 2012 for

all things related to the elections. >> reading has become over the last 200 years the ultimate democrat tick act of the ultimate democratic country. it made many the possible to teach themselves what the few held close. the president hand quote mark twain because he read huck finn and the postman can understand the reference because he read huck finn too. so the big lies of demagoguery, although still possible, require a lot more stealth and cleverness. because with careful reading of books and newspapers and now material on the internet their flaws are revealed to ordinary people like us. i mean it wasn't for nothing that the nazis made bonfires of books.

>> some news from across the atlantic today. former news international chief executive rebekah brooks and her husband charlie are to be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over the britsh phone-hacking inquiry. three of mrs. brook's staff and news international

security head mark hanna are named. alleged offenses last july including concealing documents and computers from police. former "news of the world" editor and her husband said, we deplore this weak and unjust decision. a portion of miss brooks's testimony before the investigating committee. from last week. this is just over 20 minutes. >> there are many questions i would like to ask you but i won't be able to do it today because you are facing criminal proceedings. i will be narrow in my questioning. why did you had sack tom crane. >> what happened with tom crane, we made the decision to close "the news of the world" after 168 years, tom crane has predominantly been a "news of the world" lawyer. legal manager because of the situation at "the news of the world" he predominantly spend most of his time, in fact pretty much 99% the his time on "the news of the world" and the rest of the company and the rest of the

titles had individual, had, we had appointed new lawyers and the there wasn't a job for tom once we closed "news of the world" and he left. >> still dealing with the news legal case? >> sorry? >> someone still dealing with the "news of the world" legal cases though. >> yeah, the civil cases are being dealt with like i said first one is standard management committee that we set up and you've seen announcements on that recently. i won't go over it. we talked about it. continuing civil cases all along. we have test cases coming up before the judge in january when there are people dealing with it but tom crone's role as the hands on legal manager as "news of the world". obviously when we closed the paper there wasn't a job there. >> i must have misunderstood james murdoch said he implied that you but i might

be --, news editor of news of world how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> i think on the and, when i was editor of "the news of the world" as you know i came before this committee at just as i came editor of "the sun" and in relation to privacy and the operation motorman as it was called. back then we answered extensively questions about the use of private detectives across fleet street. as you know a chart was published of which, i can't remember whether "news of the world" was on it. i think it was fourth. i think "the sun" on the table was below take a break magazine but, certainly, top five was observer, the guardian, "news of the world" and "the daily mail". >> can i just interrupt. i declare i used to work for

the "observer". not on the top four. >> top six perhaps. >> four instances. >> it was on the table. >> just to answer my question, you extensively worked with private investigators is that the answer? >> no, what i said was, that the use of private detectives in the late '90s and 2000 was a practice of fleet street and after operation motorman and privacy at fleet street actually reviewed this practice and in the main the use of private detectives was stopped. don't forget at the time as you're aware it was all about the data protection, data protection act, changes to that which were made and that's why we had the controversy in 2003. >> for the thirds time, how extensively did you work with private detectives. >> "the news of the world" employed private detectives like most newspapers on fleet street. >> fair to say you were

aware of and approved payments to private detectives. >> i as way air of "the news of the world" used private detectives under my editorship of the news of the word, yes. >> so you would have approved payments to them? >> that is not how it works but i was aware we used them. >> who would have approved the payments? >> the payment system in a newspaper which has been discussed at length is very simply, editor's job is to acquire the overall budget for the paper from the senior management. once that budget is acquired it is given to the managing editor to alloy kate to different departments. each person in that department has a different level of authorization but the final payments are authorized by the managing editor, unless, there is a particularly big item. photograph or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level and then the editor will be brought in. >> so stuart copely would have discussed some payments

with private detectives with you? >> not necessarily, no. i mean we're talking 11 years ago. he may have discussed payments to me but i don't particularly remember any incident. >> you don't remember whether you would have discussed any payments at all? >> no, i didn't say that. i said in relation to private detectives. >> yeah. >> i was aware "the news of the world" used private detectives as every paper on fleet street did. >> you don't recall whether you authorized payments or talked with stuart copely? >> the payments of private detective would have gone through the managing editors's office. >> you can't remember cope ever discussed it with you. >> sorry. >> can't remember whether stuart discussed with you? >> i can't remember individual payments. >> in your letter of 2009 you said you didn't recall meeting glenn mulcaire. you will appreciate this is an inadequate answer under the circumstances. that we require a specific response to our question. did you ever have any

contact directly or through others with glenn mulcaire? >> none whatsoever. >> would your former diary secretary be able to confirm that? >> michelle? >> former diary secretary? >> i've had, michelle. >> diary secretary, your pa. >> absolutely. >> does she hold your diary for the last 19 years. >> no, she probably doesn't. we don't keep that back 19 years, i mean she may have held back from them i don't know. >> would it be paper format or electronic format. >> i didn't not me the the mr. mulcaire. >> talking about diary. electronic format or paper format. >> be on paper format until recently. >> would you think glun mulcaire would deny he met you? >> i think he would, yes. it is true. >> were you aware of the arrangement news group newspapers had with mr. mulcaire while you were editor of "news of the world" and "the sun". >> no. >> you didn't know what he

did? >> i didn't know particularly glenn mulcaire was one of the detectives used by "news of the world", no. >> didn't know he was on the payroll? >> in fact i came across glenn mulcaire's name in 2006. >> did you receive any information that originated from glenn mulcaire or his methods? >> to me? >> you. >> to me personally? >> you as editor, did anyone bring you information as a result of glenn mulcaire's methods? >> i know entirely appropriate question but i can only keep saying the same answer. i didn't know glenn mulcaire, i never heard the name until 2006. there were other private investigators that i did know about and have heard about but he wasn't one of them. >> we'll come on to that now that you know what you know did you suspect you might have received information from papers of glun mulcaire? >> now i know what i know is that, i mean this is one of the difficulties.

obviously i know quite an extensive amount now, particularly the last six months of investigating this story. and glenn mulcaire i'm aware and worked on and off at "news of the world" i think in the late '90s and, and continued through until 2006 when he was arrested. so obviously if he worked for "the news of the world" for that time, he was, he was involved and i think, i think the judge said in 2007, which again, we may disagree with that now but the judge said in 2007 when glun mulcaire was convicted he had a perfectly legitimate contract with "news of the world" for research and investigative work. the judge said that i think quite repeatedly throughout the trial. so that's what i can tell you. >> did you ever have any contact directly or through others with jonathan rees?

>> no. >> do you know about jonathan rees? >> again, i had a lot recently about jonathan rees. i watched a panorama program and as we all did. and he wasn't, he wasn't a name familiar with me. i am told that he rejoined "the news of the world" in 2005, 2006, and, he worked with "the news of the world" and many other newspapers in the late 1990s. that's my information. >> do you find it peculiar for serious criminal offense he was then rehired by the paper? >> it does seem extraordinary. >> do you know who hired him. >> no, i don't. >> do you know who signed his contract? >> no, sorry. >> have you been conducting an investigation to find out? >> the investigation that we've been conducting for six months is particularly around the interception of

e-mails. we are, the management and standards committee at news international are going to look at jonathan rees and we already do have some information but, as to the conclusion of that investigation i do not know. >> what information do you have? >> we have information that, as i said that jonathan rees worked for "news of the world", many newspapers on fleet street in the late '90s and then he was rehired by "the news of the world" sometime in 2005. >> do you know what he was doing at that time? >> in? >> 2005, six. >> i don't, sorry. >> did you not ask? >> i was editor of "the sun" at the time. i didn't know they rehired him. >> at the company did you not wonder what you did at 2005 and six given you have a hacking scandal breaking around you? >> absolutely. i have the information panorama has that jonathan rees worked as a private investigator in the panorama program, it said he was

conducting many, many illegal. what i saw like you did but also he used to work for pan ramma. he worked for many newspapers presumably before his conviction as you say and then he was rehired by "news of the world". >> do you believe he conducted illegal activities on behalf of "news of the world"? >> i can only comment what i know and i don't know that. >> what is your belief. >> i don't, i don't know. >> you don't know what he did? >> i don't know what he did for "the news of the world", i'm sorry. i don't know what he did. >> did you not think people would find it incredible as chief executive of the company you don't know? >> well it may be incredible but again the, it is also the truth. i heard about jonathan rees's rehiring by "the news of the world" by an investigation conducted by panorama. >> did you ever have any, did you ever have any contact directly through others with steve whitmore? >> yes.

>> what did you do with him. >> steve whitmore was one of the private detectives. and i said he formed i think the major part of the operation motorman. and, as mr. fairly said -- >> would like to know what you did? >> sorry. >> i would like to know what you did with him? >> i, in the main, i, my investigative, my use of private investigators while he was editor of "news of the world" was purely legitimate and in the main as you know, for the addresses and whereabouts of convicted people and that is my majority use if not almost exclusively as a private investigator myself. so i would suspect "the news of the world" also used private investigators for other stories. >> are you aware of that steve whitmore conducted look up some the --? >> i wasn't aware of that until two weeks ago.

>> you are now? >> yes, i am. >> and, why did you mobile conversion from steve whitmore? >> as i said, it was 11 years ago. i answered this question many times. and, but just to repeat, a mobile conversion which is finding an address from a mobile phone, that is what a mobile conversion is and can be got through legitimate means. in fact the, the story that you're referring to, the mobile phone was a business, business number and address was widely known. >> so you can remember what the story was then? >> i just said to i you -- >> was story you were working on. >> because i read it in the "new york times". >> was that after that? >> i think it would be unfair to person concerned and because he has been named by the guardian and "the new york times" but what i'm saying is, and when i, very few occasions which i used a private detective was -- >> can you name other

private detective you worked with? >> no. >> you can't remember them? >> no. >> are you aware of the pape used detectives though? >> sorry? >> did the paper use other private detectives other than steve whitmore, jonathan rees and glenn mulcaire? >> he was, he was the one i was, i was aware of at the time. and as i said, the first time i heard about glenn mulcaire when he was arrested in 2006. >> is it your belief that the paper used other private investigators that you just can't remember today? >> no. i remember, it isn't that i can't remember. it is, you have the same information as i have which is from operation motorman. >> one last question. do you have any regrets? >> of course i have regrets. i mean, the idea that milly dowler's phone was accessed by someone being paid by "the news of the world" or even worse, authorized by someone at "news of the world" is

abhorrent to me as it is to everyone in this room and, ultimate regret that the speed at which we have found out, tried to find out the bottom of this investigation has been too slow. i think james and rupert both accepted that earlier. and we are endeavoring and, they are endeavoring now, i left the company, to continue to investigate. of course there are regrets. >> thank you. >> james murdoch at the end of our long session which is, the culture, hacking, blocking and private detectives within fleet street and to what extent "the news of the world" felt justified in its, in its culture in those practice bass everybody was doing it, if you like. i couldn't help thinking that piers morgan, celebrity anchor on cnn, said openly

in his book, clearly published before this whole controversy broke, that he has hacked phones. he said he won scoop of the year about a story about melissa johnson and and gave tutorials how ones access voice mail but punch in a set code. clearly from the account he did did it routinely at daily mirror and he was as employee of news international. you talk about operation motorman and the different amounts use of steve whitmore by various members of fleet street. i went through the information from the commissioners report and for transactions in the "daily mail"'s associated newspapers group. there was 1,000 -- 1387 transactions with according to mr. whitmore over used by 98 journalists across titles in that group. . .

>> we've heard a lot over the last 11, well, 10 years, but particularly i think this committee held an inquiry into the operation which was incredibly expensive. every single editor of fleet street, i think, was called to this committee, and as far as i was concerned, the failings of all newspapers in not understanding the extent of the use of private investigators across fleet street was held to

account then. and there were many changes because of the operation to the data protection act. and although i accept mr. farrelly's knowledge of the observer, it's going to be far better than mine, but they, in fact, wrote a very good editorial on this, i think, about three months ago. sort of addressing, again, readdressing that climate then and how different it is now. >> um, in the committee in 2003 concluded that there was widespread evidence of despicable practices across the media including payments to the police. i appreciate the legal sensitivities involved in this question, but i will put it to you anyway. if your evidence in 2003 you were -- in your evidence in 2003 you said we have paid the police in the past. and if i may suggest to you that the manner in which you said that, you said it almost as though we have paid the police in the past, the implication being as do all tabloid

newspapers. i'm not asking you to make specific allegations. in your general knowledge, were payments to the police widespread across fleet street, or were they confined to news international titles? >> if you remember the evidence i gave in 2003, actually, i was going on to explain my comment, and as you know, mr. bryant was asking me to explain my comment, and the actual session ended. in 2003 straight after my comment about payment to police was, in fact, clarified, i think the chairman of news international in the 2007 clarified it again. and i clarified it recently to the home affairs committee at the end of march, i think. now, i can say that it -- i have never paid a policeman myself, i've never sanctioned or knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer. i was referring if you saw at

the time of the home of both select committee recently and that you'd have various crime editors from fleet street discussing that in the past payments have been made to police officers. i was, i was referring to that wide-held belief, not widespread practice. and, in fact, it's in my experience in dealing with the police, the information they give to newspapers comes free of charge. >> the data in evidence to parliamentary committee yesterday stated that to his knowledge "the daily mail" has never published a story based on hacking or blogging, this from a group that identified paid -- made 1,387 transactions across it titles. do you think it is credible that those 100-plus -- 1300-plus

transactions were lis sitly obtained or is there this wider culture of which your paper was a part? >> i think that you'll have seen out of all the media groups in this country that news international has been the one to openly welcome the prime minister's public inquiry which will alter street practices. we haven't gotten the permitters yet. i'm not hearing a petition to comment on other newspaper groups. like i said at the beginning, things went badly wrong at "news of the world", and we are doing our best to sort it out. and i accept that it's not what this committee would have wished and mistakes have been made, but we are trying to put them right. i think it's important that there was a select committee inquiry into the operation, and it is properly right that the code of conduct of journalists and the ethics of journalism are

in constant review. because if they're not, it is, you know, the freedom which are, which i believe in very strongly, if there is not constant review of conduct and ethics, then they are at risk. >> one final question. um, your correspondence with the committee did place great emphasis when you were refusing to attend in previous letters of you being willing to attend -- [inaudible] in other words, you appeared to put emphasis whatever happened at "news of the world," it was part of this wider culture. and i would just put it to you that if you seem to know or imply that these practices were going on elsewhere, how could you not be aware they were going on endemically at "news of the world," and do you not regret that you did not yourself undertake some kind of branch information into "news of the world" rather than waiting for these things to drip out?

>> i think just going back to 2002, 2003 with all the changes to the data protection act, the fact is there was a root and branch change as a result of the select committee inquiries and the result of the information officers report into what apprised privacy. there was a fundamental change then across most newspapers and particularly, like i said, i was then-editor of "the sun", and i can say absolutely that "the sun" is a very clean ship, a great newsroom. and in particular the operation referred to the "news of the world." >> thank you. >> and, again, rebekah brooks and her husband and members of her staff today charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over the british

phone-hacking investigation. we'll likely hear more about this during british prime minister's question times, members of the house of commons get an opportunity to pose questions to prime minister david cameron. you can see that live here on c-span2 tomorrow starting at 7 a.m. eastern. members of the u.s. senate are attending their weekly party caucus lunches right now after a debate this morning on extending the export-import bank charter. they'll be back at 2:15 eastern when we're expecting votes and a bill be on final passage. more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down here at c-span2. and c-span's congressional directory has contact information for each member of the house and senate as well as district maps, committee assignments and more. you'll also find cabinet members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling online at c-span.org/shop.

presidential primary voting is taking place in nebraska and oregon today. right now mitt romney is about 178 delegates shy of the 1144 he'll need for the nomination. keep it on c-span for results later tonight, and don't forget to go to c-span.org/campaign2012 for all things related to the election. this week marks the 31st national peace officers memorial. president obama spoke at ther is mopeny earlier today. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and chuck canterbury, president of the fraternal order of police. >> detail, colors! present arms!

>> detail, color guard, right shoulder order, arms!

ready, cut! >> please stand for the advancement of the colors by the united states capitol police, and remain standing for our national anthem. >> forward, march.

>> detail, color guard, present arms! >> we'll now have the national anthem by kathy williams. ♪ ♪ o, say can you see by the dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming. ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, or the ramparts we

watched were so gallantly streaming. ♪ and the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. ♪ o, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪

[cheers and applause] >> detail, color guard, order right shoulder, arms! >> please remain standing for the invocation presented by phil

wiggins, captain of the national order of fraternal police. >> please join me in prayer. our gracious father, we thank you for this clear weather today. our gracious father, on this sacred day, may the 15th, we have set aside for a day to remember all those that have been killed in the line of duty. we pay tribute to our law enforcement brothers and sisters that have made that ultimate sacrifice while serving others. we celebrate the day the life of service and commitment to their family, department and agency. this day is also a time to say thank you to the past and present survivors' families for allowing us to share in your pain and, hopefully, to be able to help you recover, seeking god's help and wisdom. from close friends to law enforcement agencies across the country, local, state, federal and national government leaders, we recognize this great loss to

you and our country, and today we pause to say thank you to our fallen heroes and to offer their families our love and support and remind them that we will never forget. now, may god's love and grace be with you now and forever, amen. >> amen. >> color guard, order. [inaudible] >> you can, please, be seated.

it is my honor and privilege as the president of the fraternal order of police to welcome all of you, my fellow officers, our law enforcement families and distinguished guests to this 31st annual national peace officers' memorial service. i would like to begin this morning by introducing our guests who have joined me on the dais for this solemn event. beginning on my right, please welcome terry gainer, the senate sergeant at arms and a longtime member of the fot. thank you, terry. [applause] next to terry is linda gregory, national president of the concerned of police survivors as well as our good friend, craig floyd, the chairman of the law enforcement national memorial fund. [applause] we're very honored to have with us today tim scully, the vice president of governmental affairs, one of our most

generous corporate sponsors for this event. thank you, tim. [applause] it's always a pleasure to introduce and welcome one of the fop's most stalwart champions on capitol hill, senator patrick leahy of vermont, chairman of the senate committee on the judiciary. mr. chairman, we thank you again this year. [applause] we're also very pleased to have with us a very good friend of everyone in law enforcement and especially everyone in the fop, the minority whip of the u.s. house of representatives, steny hoyer. thank you, mr. hoyer. [applause] we are also very honored to have with us again at this service speaker of the house of representatives, mr. john boehner. mr. speaker, thank you for coming again. [applause] also joining us is the state president of the north dakota fraternal order of police, grant benjamin. he is here today representing the national board of directors in honor of a lost board of

director member from the fraternal order of police, steve cantor, who passed away in the line of duty in 2011. steve was the fourth national board member of the fop to die in the line of duty, and grant is here to represent especially his friend, steve cantor. thank you, grant. [applause] next, i welcome lynn hinny, she'll be welcoming you all in a few minutes. [applause] turning now to my left, please welcome paul irving, the sergeant at arms in the house of of the representatives. this is his first service as the house sergeant at arms, and we're grateful for his presence. [applause] next is the acting chief of the united states capitol police. tom reynolds is joining us for the first year as the acting chief. thank you, chief. [applause] next to chief reynolds is the acting director of the bureau of

the atf, mr. todd jones. thank you, director. [applause] we are also pleased to have with us today stacy hilton, director of the united states marshals' service. thank you. [applause] again joining us for i don't think how many years, director -- i don't know how many years, director mark sullivan, united states secret service. thank you, direct director. [applause] we're also very grateful to have with us a great friend of law enforcement, the fbi director, robert mueller. thank you, director. his positions are well known and deeply appreciated. we're also very pleased to welcome the deputy attorney general, jim col, who is with us this year. thank you. [applause] also very pleased to welcome last year's keynote speaker who is joining us again, the department of homeland security secretary, janet napolitano. [applause]

and finally, it's with great honor and privilege to have with us today the president of the united states, barack obama, who i will introduce more fully in a few moments. [applause] mr. president. on behalf of the 330,000 members of if fop, i want to welcome you all. we come here today to honor members of the law enforcement family who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. president teddy roosevelt said life brings sorrow and joys alike. it is what a man does with them, not what they do to him, that is the true test of their mettle. the fact that you are all here today to honor your loved one demonstrates the mettle that all the law enforcement families in our great country have, and i cannot think of many professions in this country where our mettle

is tested any more than in the area of public safety. america's first responders are always there in times of need, and it is truly unfortunate that so many lose their lives every year to protect this great country. billy graham said, courage is contagious. when a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened. the courage we are here today to honor has, indeed, helped to strengthen the resolve that all public safety professionals feel when they go to work. there is nothing in law enforcement that is more devastating than the loss of a brother or sister officer in the line of duty. over 18,000 law enforcement professionals have died in service to our nation, and in all of those the courage and mettle of our brothers and the sisters has been tried. but the thin blue line becomes stronger because of the courage

and sacrifice that your loved ones demonstrated. the show of support that we provide to you, the families of our fallen heroeses, is our way of showing you that the loss of our brothers and sisters will keep us strong, will keep us vigilant and keep our courage and commitment ever present in this great land. we know that our gesture here today will not take away your pain, nor relieve you of the memories of their passing. but we want you to know that we will remain courageous, and we will never forget the sacrifice that they have each made. president john adams said, grief drives men to serious reflection, sharpens the understanding and softens the heart. adams was a wise man, and i concur that our grief here today and in the future will sharpen our understanding about the sacrifices that the heroes have made. god bless you, our honored

families; god bless the entire law enforcement community; may god keep our troops safe overseas, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] it is now my honor and privilege to introduce the fop associate -- aukes sill ri president, linda hanney, for a few remarks. linda? [applause] >> mr. president, members of congress, brothers and sisters of law enforcement, families and friends of our fallen heroes, welcome to the 31st annual national peace officers' memorial service. in 1962 president john f. kennedy proclaimed that may 15th of each year be observed as peace officers' memorial day. in 1982 a yearly observance was established to recognize and

honor the men and women who bravely made the ultimate sacrifice. today we honor 166 officers who hugged their kids, kissed their wives, kissed -- or their parents, called their parents, waved to their neighbor and donned the uniform and shield one last time. they did not anticipate that this would be the last time they walked through that door. they didn't anticipate, also, that it would be the last time they walked into the squad room, prepared their cruiser or laughed over a joke with their partner. they and their families expected them to return from their shift to continue with life as it's been; normal, evidence living. however, this was not the case for the officers we honor here today. on the evening of march 18, 2011, officer andrew s. dunn of the sandusky, ohio, police

department tucked their sons -- caleb, age 2 and connor, age 5 -- into bed. he kidsed his wife julie good night and headed off to work. he put in a call to his father, fellow sandusky police officer matt dunn, to see how his shift had gone. in the early morning hours of march 19th, he observed a man riding a bicycle with no lights. he attempted to talk to the man, but the suspect evaded officer dunn and kept riding. officer dunn turned on his overheadlight, pulled the suspect over, and as he exited his cruiser, he saw the suspect had his hand in his pocket. officer dunn asked him to show his happened, and the suspect opened fire, hitting him with five rounds. though he was critically wounded, officer dunn returned fire, striking the suspect as he ran away. in his last moments of consciousness, officer dunn

radioed signal 11, officer in trouble. back-up officers arrived, and officer dunn was transported to the hospital where he died of his injuries. life for the family and friends of officer dunn, as well as all the families gathered here today, was changed the day their officer was killed. if you had not experienced the unity of the brotherhood and sisterhood before, the events that occurred for the next few days and weeks following the loss of your officer was certainly -- would certainly provide you with reassurance that you will not walk alone. there is a kinship, a connection, a bond like no other between those that wear the badge. you need only look around today to be reassured that your loved one will be forever written on the heart and soul of the law enforcement community. these officers did not live for honors or pay, their happiness was in doing their job,

protecting and serving the public. president calvin coolidge once stated: no person was ever honored for what he received, honored for what reward he gave. these 166 brave men and women gave their all. they laid down their life to protect and serve families, friends, coworkers and the public who are here today to honor them. may they rest in peace, may god bless the families they leave behind, and may god bless america. thank you. [applause] >> i now have the honor and privilege to introduce our keynote speaker for this, our 31st annual national peace officers' memorial service. barack obama, the president of

the united states, will address us today. this is the second time that president obama has been able to join us to honor the families of our fallen heroes. mr. president, it's a great privilege to have you with us. the men and women whose memory we cherish today put themselves in harm's way to say -- to protect the citizens of their communities and this great country of ours. we thank them for their sacrifice, and we share the grief of their families, and we will never forget them or you for speaking here today. while the rank and file officers are doing everything they can to keep our streets safe, many of us worry that no one is worried about providing us the tools to do our job. but, mr. president, we know that you and our administration -- your administration have worked hard to provide these tools. your continued support for programs to provide vital funding for state and local law enforcement, be with -- be it with programs that prevent layoffs or hire our returning

military veterans, your support -- and for your support for the public safety officer benefit program. you and your administration have been valued partners in the cause of public safety. we are proud to welcome you here today. brothers and sisters, our survivor families and distinguished guests, please, join me in welcoming the president of the united states, barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. please, please, have a seat. thank you, chuck, for that very kind introduction. chuck is a proud police officer, he's the proud participant of a police officer -- proud parent of a police officer, and he has dedicated his life to law enforcement and their families, so i want to thank him for his extraordinary service. i want to recognize the entire

fraternal order of police and its leadership including jim pasco for all your work on behalf of those who wear the badge. i'd like to recognize fopics civil ri president linda, all the members of of the fop aukes lair, members of congress, congressman hoyer and senator leahy as well as members of my administration and, most of all, i want to acknowledge and thank the families of those who have fallen. the scripture tells us: blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of god. blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of god. our country's law enforcement officers use force when they have to, they are well-armed, and they are well-trained.

but they never forget that theirs is a mission of peace. their job is to keep the peace, to allow all of us to enjoy peace in our neighborhoods and for our families. today, with heavy hearts, we honor those who gave their lives in the service of that mission. their families are in our thoughts and prayers as we remember the quiet courage of the men and women we have lost. these are officers like detective john fallcone of poughkeepsie, new york. he responded to a shot-fired call on main street, and when he arrived on the scene, he saw a

man holding a gun with one hand and a small child with the other. now, in a situation like that every instinct pushes us towards self-preservation. but when the suspect fled, still holding the child, detective falcone didn't think twice. he took off in pursuit. and tragically, in the struggle that followed, he was shot and killed. he's survived by his parents. but there's another survivor as well; a 3-year-old child who might no not be alive today had it not been for the sacrifice of a hero who gave his life for another. this willingness to risk everything for a complete stranger is extraordinary, and yet among our nation's law enforcement officers it is also common place.

last summer the north platte river was running high near douglas, wyoming, when a teenage girl got caught in the current. deputy brian goss of the converse county sheriff's office, jumped in after her. the girl was eventually pulled from the water, but deputy goss was swept away, and he's survived by his wife, amy. today we remember a man who swore to protect his neighbors and who kept that promise no matter what the cost. i suspect that at that moment, do -- the deputy wasn't trying to be a hero, he was just doing his job. you can find that bravery, the courage to do your duty day in and day out in so many officers across our country. one of those officerses was deputy sheriff suzanne hopper

from clark county, ohio. deputy hopper was known as the go-to person in her department. no task was too large or too small. and on new year's day, 2011, deputy hopper arrived at a crime scene and began a preliminary investigation just as she had done many times during her 12 years of service. but as she was photographing evidence, a man opened the door of his trailer and fired at her with his shotgun, killing her. today we remember not just a fine officer, but a wife, a mother and a stepmother. like all those we honor today, deputy hopper is also survived by the fellow officers who she meant so much to and who meant so much to her. last week her childhood friend, sergeant chris schultz, posted

her flag at a memorial in ohio. he made a promise in her memory. he said, to honor her we will keep going and continue to do what we've done no matter how hard it is at times. we will keep going. there's no pledge that better honors the memory of those we have lost. and there are no memories, there are no words that better capture the unbreakable spirit of those who wear the badge. because even in the face of tragedy, i know that so many of you will return home and continue to do what you've always done. some of you will kiss your husbands or wives good-bye each morning morning and send them out the door not knowing what might happen that day. some of you are children and parents, sisters and brothers whose pride is mixed with worry. and, of course, there are the officers themselves.

every american who wears the badge knows the burdens that come with it; the long hours and the stress, the knowledge that just about any moment could be a matter of life or death. you carry these burdens so the rest of us don't have to. and this shared sense of purpose brings you together, and it brings you to our nation's capitol today. you come from different states and different backgrounds and different walks of life, but i know that you come here as a community, one family united by a quiet strength and a willingness to sacrifice on behalf of others. the rest of us can never fully understand what you go through but, please, know that we hold you in our hearts not just today, but always. we are forever in your debt.

it is on behalf of all of us, the entire american people, that i offer my thoughts, my prayers and my thanks. may god shine a light upon the fallen and comfort the mourning, may he protect the peacemakers who protect us every day, and may he bless now and forever the united states of america. [applause]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

>> on the road to the white house, presidential primary voting is happening today in nebraska and michigan. right now mitt romney is about 178 delegates short of the 1144 he needs for the nomination. be sure to check c-span for results later tonight, and don't forget to go to c-span.org/campaign2012 for all things related to the elections. the u.s. senate will be back in just over half an hour at 2:15 eastern from their weekly

party meetings, votes on amendments and final passage of the export-import bank charter expected when they get back in. more live coverage when senators return here on c-span2. while we wait for the senate to reconvene, a part of a senate subcommittee hearing from earlier today, looking at the cost of drugs that are used to treat hiv and aids. senator bernie sanders of vermont has introduced legislation to expand the use of generic hiv/aids drugs which would lower prices. here's some of today's hearings beginning with questions about the ethical implications of his proposal. >> let me start off, and let's do this informally. let me start off with an ethical question, and i notice, dr.less cig, in your biography among many other achievements, you deal with ethics. i think the average american would be extremely upset to know that people are dying not

because we don't know how to treat those people, that's one sad aspect of life, but that they can't afford what is, in fact, a minimal cost in terms of the real production of the product to save their lives. it's like somebody over there dying, and nobody's going out and reaching out a hand and bringing them in. they're drowning in a swimming pool. what are the ethical implications of that? >> of course, i agree that there's a significant ethical question raised by the problem you described of somebody not voluntarily stepping forth and saving a drowning child, but i think this problem is actually worse. because as jamie was just emphasizing the government is intervene anything this market already. its intervention is in the form of an exclusive right called a patent. the consequence of that intervention is to produce a market where only a tiny slice of those who are affected by the disease can actually get access

to the drug. there's a different way for the government to intervene. the government could intervene, as the professor has described and as your bill has made possible, in a way that would facilitate a wide range of people being able to have access to the drug. so i think the precise call question is when you have two modes of intervention and you select one that certainly will exclude the vast majority of people who need access to this drug, what possible justification could there be for that? and i don't think there was -- >> in other words, the government is proactively preventing people from getting the treatment. >> by choosing one mode of intervention over the other. >> other comments on the -- >> just one, want to add one thing which is the government winds up paying for the research anyway. so it's the public's money. the effect is and the way the system is designed, the public's money is not being used in an equitable way. >> well, let me add to that and tell me what i'm missing here. ideally, i think what medicine is about is providing the

treatment when people need it. we've got a couple of physicians up here at least and, doctor, if somebody does not get the medicine that they need and their illness continues and they end up in the hospital at huge expense, are we saving money as a system by not providing the medicine when somebody needs it? what's the financial implication -- [laughter] >> mr. chairman, we see this every day. it's, obviously, a lot more expensive when somebody get to the hospital and then have to be in the intensive care unit. then you spend up hundreds of thousands -- millions of dollars to really no avail. there's no good outcome at that point. so it is, basically, foolish to be in that position when you could do some preventive work up front, when you could provide the medication with which not only you save the person's life, but also you prevent the transmission of the disease to the others. so you are not only providing treatment to the individual, but

you're also protecting the the society. and i think that is the bigger question for us to discuss. >> so for $200, roughly speaking, for the hiv/aids cocktail, by not providing that $200, somebody will end up in the hospital, suffer at great financial cost to the society, that does not make a whole lot of sense, i think. >> that does not make economic sense, that does not make professional is sense from a medical standpoint, but that also does not make public health sense. >> right. >> where you are leaving this individual untreated, and the person continues to spread the disease to others. >> right. other thoughts on that general subject? >> yes. i think one of the things we mentioned was we're live anything a time of treatment as prevention. well, if treatment's going to be $25,000 as opposed to 200, 300,000 people of the 1.2

million don't know they're infected. so if we increase testing by the national aids strategy and try to get them in treatment, we have to be able to afford to do that. so this legislation would make that more possible. >> okay. other thoughts? yeah. >> we've been told of cases where some jurisdictions where people are not tested to see if they're hiv positive while they're inmates in prison until they're released because the institution doesn't want to bear the high cost of paying for the drugs. [laughter] >> i mean, it really would be -- i mean, it really is laughable if it wasn't so tragic, isn't it? imagine that, not diagnosing somebody because you can't afford to pay for the treatment. yeah, ms. moon. >> thank you. i think the point that the importance of prevention and preventing new enfictions in this country and worldwide has been well emphasized, and if we

imagine how the public would react if an aids vaccine were developed and priced at $25,000, $30,000 per person per year, i think that drives home some of the big challenges we're facing. but i wanted to get back to the point that professor lessig raised regarding the fact that the ip systems are on the market. the u.s. government does intervene in the market here in the u.s., but we also know that the u.s. government has been pushing for more stringent ip standards worldwide, including in developing countries, start anything the 19820s with the negotiation of the trips agreement and more recently through demanding certain types of provisions in free trade agreements that are being negotiated, demanding higher and higher and higher ip standards knowing full well what the implications are for access to medicines, so i think the ethical questions reach far beyond to stretch worldwide. >> let me ask you, dr. moon, a dumb bunny question of which i

know the answer but some people watching this on tv may not know, why is that? why are the economic forces involved here? is it an accident that the united states government is telling poor people around the world and their governments, essentially, what you're saying, they're going to have to pay more for drugs to keep people alive? how does that happen? >> i think there are others on this panel who can speak more regarding, speak more on the problems with the way our own government is function anything a way that our own trade policies are designated. but, sorry, are decided upon. um, but i think one rationale that has been put forward for why it is in the u.s. interest to push for stronger ip standards abroad is the idea that we want other countries to pay higher prices for medicines to, therefore, contribute more to research and development. that's the rationale that's been given. of course, whether or not that is acceptable in other countries is an issue altogether. but what i think is quite

interesting to consider today is there are, in fact, interesting alternatives that have been put on the table. next week at the world health assembly, 193 member states will come together and debate the recommendation that governments start to negotiate a binding convention for r&d which would set more predictable, sustainable and fair methods for getting, sorry, calculating contributions for every country to contribute to r&d so that we don't have to rely on high prices. >> anyone want to add to the question of how it just so happens that the united states government goes around the world telling developing countries that they have to pay, in some cases, prices for drugs that their people simply cannot afford? yeah. doctor? >> first off, let me just highlight the seriousness of this issue. we have bilateral trade agreements with a number of countries and propose them with

others. one of the developing countries that we had proposed an agreement was the president was a doctor, and he had signed, given the hippocratic oath to do no harm. and i explained to him that it was inconsistent with that for him to sign the bilateral trade agreement with the united states because by doing that it would deny access to life-saving medicine to his people. the reason these provisioners including, obviously, clear, the united states -- these are not free trade agreements that we have. they're managed trade agreements, and they're -- if they were free trade agreements, they would be a couple pages long. it would get rid of all our trade barriers, you get rid of all your trade barriers, all our

subsidies. these go on, as you know, for hundreds of pages because they are really special interest pieces of legislation. and a special interest that has played a very important role in shaping trade negotiations are intellectual property interests, entertainment industries and the drug companies particularly. and their concerns have been more to maximize the -- [inaudible] they get out of their drugs than maximizing innovation or maximizing the health of the world. so an example of a particularly, a provision of particular concern goes well beyond issues of patents. it goes to issues like data exclusivity which means that in other countries they cannot use data even when it's partly financed by the u.s. government to license generic drugs that

would provide the basis, you know, that are equivalent and that would enable poor people in their countries to get access to drugs as you pointed out as little as 1% of the cost of the current, the patented drugs. the whole structure of many of these agreements is to discourage generic medicines and, therefore, to make medicine less accessible which means to hurt health. >> well, let me jump from -- yeah, dr. love? >> add to that, there was -- the policy of really going after medicine really took off in the '90s initially, and -- '80s initially, and toward the end of president clinton's term there was this activist about aids drugs in africa.

and president -- vice president gore and president bush, they moderated their positions. president clinton issued an executive order, and it surprised a lot of people, george bush kept lot of those reforms early in his administration. on may 10th of 2007, he entered into an agreement with the democrats in the house of representatives to protect access to medicine in developing countries by eliminating the requirement for data exclusivity in developing countries. that was the agreement they reached to moderate their demands on patent extensions and other issues. now, the obama administration is in a new trade agreement called the trans-pacific partnership agreement right now. they're meeting this week in dallas -- they're meeting in dallas as we speak on this issue. the obama administration's now reneging on the may 10th agreement. they're now reuping the demands for data exclusivity and patent

extensions. vietnam is part of that negotiation, peru's part of that negotiation. you know, designed to effect very poor countries. and the new proposal the u.s. government has is called the team proposal, something on access to medicine. it's secret except if you're a drug company lobbyist, then you can be on a cleared advisory board, and you have access to that information. and they refuse to present the text that the u.s. is proposing on this to ordinary citizens and taxpayers. it's only available if you find yourself in one of these cleared advisory groups that the u.s. government has. and i had one other point, and that is that india recently issued a compulsory license for a cancer drug called nexavar. the drug was priced at $69,000 per year for cancer patients for kidney and liver cancer in india, a country -- and and recently had a per capita income

of $1300 a year. the government said $69,000 a year in india was not reasonably affordable. and i certainly agree with that conclusion. now, subsequently, the secretary of commerce of the united states traveled in deli a few week -- delhi a few weeks ago, and ron kirk listed this issue on the recent may 1st version of the new special 301 report. so, yeah, it's a huge problem. and i think the one way i'd sort of think about this is in the united states we're increasing the ipr protection, and we're raising the prices. internationally we do it, nobody thinks it's enough to do anything about. it's like we're a frog that's being put in a pot of water that's being turned up one degree at a time. and we're just going to be cooked. if you look at where we're going to be 20 years from now, the ipr system today for drugs is worse

than it was five years ago, it was worse than it was ten years ago, you have to ask yourself where's it going to be 20 years from now? this bill is an attempt to build a bridge for the future, so the future is something that's consistent with human rights, consistent with universal access, consistent with our values. >> i just have one point. as jamie's intervention makes clear, a problem that doesn't afflict one party in this government, um, so let me amend my comments about the uniqueness of this event. it'ses also significant that this is an independent senator raising this issue because, obviously, the need to keep the ip interest both of pharmaceutical companies and hollywood happy is that something both the democrats and the republicans are addicted to. and there's no way out of that particular addiction so long as we have this structure -- >> let me just pick up on that. a number of years ago when i was in the house of representatives,

i went on a congressional delegation to south africa. and it was bipartisan, tripartisan. and i will never forget sitting in a room with the president of south africa -- that was after mandela -- and he was being berated, berated for standing up to the pharmaceutical industry at that time and suggesting that the people in his very, very poor country needed drugs that they could afford. and he was being attacked by democrats and republicans. so you're right, i think this is very much a bipartisan concern. i want to raise, jump to another issue. i speak now as a member of the budget committee, former mayor of a city. doctor akhtar, what is, when we talk about very, very expensive treatments for hiv/aids at a time when we know the same treatment is available abroad because of u.s. funding, by the

way, at 1%, of course, what does it mean? d.c. has, you have educational problems, infrastructure problems, and every state in the country, virtually every state is feeling serious financial constraints right now. what does it mean to be paying very, very high prices for medicine when you know that it should be available in a much lesser price? >> mr. chairman, with the current prices, they are neither affordable, nor sustainable not only in washington, but in any other state. this is a major cost driver for us over a number of years, a number of patients will continue to increase. the cost will continue to increase. and if the current way continues, who knows where it will end up. ultimately, we will end up rationing in this country. we'll be seeing right now 9,000 people don't get it, maybe 100,000 people don't get it.

and that's where thicks are. -- things are. strictly speaking, it busts the budget. it's a budget buster. until and unless federal government does something, the city governments don't have much control over it. we have gone to every eave that i know -- through every avenue that i know to get the discount prices. we go to the defense department, we buy in bulk, we do this. but for private citizens to go buy the drugs, a person who's uninsured, it could be $25,000 or $30,000 a year. this is not sustainable. and if you look at minimum lifetime cost of $300,000, it is equivalent to the equity the people have in their homes, average american living in vermont or missouri. so this is really not affordable, not sustainable. there's another issue, also. when costs are so high, people who have no health insurance or people who can't afford it, they then go and try to buy it from

other countries, try to smuggle it in or try to come and register in washington, d.c. where the thing may be available and end up doing something that's illegal. so we're asking people who are other side law-abiding, paying their taxes, they've been working very hard, we're asking them to do these illegal things because we don't have the medications available to them. and i think that's really a very fundamental human question in addition to the budget question. >> let me jump to another issue. we have been talking about the impact of high cost on individuals, people dying because they can't afford the artificially-high price. we talked about the problems facing city and state and federal government budgets. but let me raise, go back to a question or an issue that jamie love raised as well, that is not only is the current system forcing, in some cases mandating

that people die because they can't afford the treatment and cities to bear undo financial burden because of the high prices, but apparently the system isn't doing all that well in terms of new research and innovation. we are not seeing the kinds of breakthroughs, and i think others have mentioned. i think dr. stiglitz and others have mentioned in many instances drug companies can make more money from doing me-too products or investing in this, that or the other thing rather than investing in the most important health cry cease facing -- crises facing americans and people all over the world. dr. love, do you want to say a word on that? or anybody else? >> well, i'm not a doctor, so i'll just set the record straight on that. [laughter] but, i mean, the good news is that there's been, been about 25 different new chemical entities

that have come on the market in the last 25 years. that's a positive thing. because patients need a complicated mixture of products. they need of three antiretroviral treatment, a lot of them use four products and some of them use more than that. and the feasible combinations are complicated, and people develop resistance, and so it's a positive thing that, you know, there's been a pipeline of drugs. and so i think everyone that works on this issue at a very minimum wants to protect the fact that there continues to be innovation, products with fewer side effects. the reality is, as i mentioned, 13 of the 15 largest-selling products are based on drugs that are at least nine years old. so given the fact that we're spending $8 billion a year to support the monopoly system on this, you know, and you maybe have two drug on this thing that have come on the market since 1999, i'd have to say the only way you could justify the

economics of this is if you didn't really try and justify it compared to anything else. it has to be compared to flat earth. it has to be compared to absolutely nothing at all. it cannot possibly be compared to this price system. and i know that the national academy has been asked to look at this, and we're hoping they'll take a deep look at it. but in terms of the most profitable products for companies are the chronic -- i'm sorry. the most -- >> that's not you. >> the most profitable products are the chronic products you tag every day for the rest of your life. that's sort of the goal for a company. and they just try -- you mentioned lifetime earn, exactly right. i mean, they want to look at what is a lifetime cap on insurance for somebody or something like that. but the, obviously, with 1.2 million people that are hiv positive and a number that's

headed north, you know, it just isn't really feasible to get the number of patients on here you want. now, what you want to have is products which you want the money that you are spending which is probably less than a half -- i don't know what the exact numbers are. if you ask how much is being spent on an aids drug, if we're spending $1 billion in the united states -- $9 billion in the united states on drugs or whatever the number is, you'd have to say how much money are the companies reinvest anything r&d? is it a billion dollars? >> do we know that? >> no, you don't know that. you can make some informed estimates about what's spend spent -- >> yards, what you're spending at least -- in other words, what you're saying is we would like the drug companies investing in trying to find solutions to the most serious illnesses that we face. >> well, they do make investments. what we don't know given the high cost of the system is how much -- >> right. >> in other words, if prices are higher by $8 billion, how much

of that trickles down into r&d? >> dr. stiglitz, you are a doctor, right? [laughter] why don't you -- >> not a real doctor. >> it'll do for this committee. [laughter] >> the fundamental problem is that the incentives provided by our intellectual property system do not direct attention to the areas that are the most socially productive. that's the fundamental problem. so if the returns are highest for a me-too drug that doesn't add value, that's what they're going to do. it's dividing somebody else's profits by half, and we know we can do it because it's been proven. so the incentives for the direction of research do not accord in any way with social returns. it's particularly true if we look at this from a global point

of view because many of the diseases are diseases of poor people, and one of the attribute of poor people is they don't have money. and when you don't have money -- >> you need to be an economist to know that. that's my question. [laughter] >> and the result of that is they aren't going to be a profit center for -- but we are all affected by that because diseases, viruses, bacteria don't carry passports and don't know about visas to go across boundaries so that we can all be exposed to diseases that originate, at one time a disease of the poor, and they become diseases in the more advanced industrial countries. the broader point which jamie has emphasized is if you look at the difference between what we pay the government or we as a nation pay for drugs and the

cost of production, that's a huge amount. i mentioned in my oral testimony studies that showed that the gap for the government alone is something like a quarter a trillion dollars a year. over ten years that's, you know, over $2 trillion. we're talking about how do we make up for the, our budgetary? this is a big potential. if all that money went into productive research, you might say, well, the money well spent. but, in fact, a relatively small fraction of ha money goes into -- of that money goes into productive research. more money is spent on advertising/marketing. and as i again pointed out, much of that goes to trying to reduce the elasticity of demand, to increase market power, to increase monopoly profits rather

than to disseminate information, to make sure our health care system is working better. >> i just wanted to reiterate something. you know, these two companies that have the therapeutic vaccines, they don't have the money to produce it. one of them now in norway actually has a way this works in human beings, but you have to have enough money to get through the sec level of trials at -- second level of trials at fda. some of these medications where you have to take such complicated regimenses, and it's worth it because it does save your life or prolongs life, but with the vaccine, it may fit into being more realistic in people's lives because if i'm feeling healthy and have hiv even at a high level, i'm not going to -- i have to take care of family, raise money, do things like that. you may not adhere to this

regiment. the therapeutic vaccine could make that kind of difference, and we don't have enough money to develop it. >> okay. >> thank you. >> yes, dr. moon? >> i think mr. oldham raises a very important point about prices which we've not really touched on today which is the benefit of the price member anymore -- mechanism, in fact, opens up a problem to be solved to a much broader potential of solvers, and i think he has reminded us that despite the major advance that antiretroviral therapy does offer, far from perfect. it's difficult to maintain that there are, in fact, lots of other areas of scientific inquiry that could yield benefits and mechanisms for information that are, in fact, that encourage risk taking, that encourage breakthrough innovation are needed and that one of the strengths really, and i think there's a possibility of encouraging solvers from everywhere, from every corner to come forward and put their ideas on the table. >> okay. does anybody -- it's, we've been

here for an hour and a half, and i don't want to keep you longer than necessary. is there anything that anyone wants to add or raise that we haven't touched upon? yeah, jamie. >> in my written statement on page 5 and page 6 i made some reference to the cross-licensing agreements between the companies that sell aids drugs. on the face of it, you'd think you'd have a lot of competition in the aids drugs market. there's eight different manufacturers that are among the leading people that have antiretroviral drugs. and, um, you have -- while you have a lot of me-too drugs, that suggests maybe you have competition within the same they were piewtic -- therapeutic class. in some classes you have eight or nine products. why is it you don't see as much

price competition? part of it is the collusion between companies. bristol-myers and gilead, merck, pfizer, gsk, ab ott and roche all cross-license their products in various ways in the hiv area. and -- or outside of the hiv area. and they're so often in bed with each other back and forth, in some cases one company will sell the drug in the united states, another country will sell it in europe or other countries or there might be be a fixed-dose combination by the leading one involves products from both in the united states bristol-myers and gilead. so it's hard to know are they partners, or are they competitors? and the prices would suggest they're more like partners than competitors. >> all right. let me -- yeah, dr. stiglitz.

>> just two comments i want to add. you, i think, were right in thinking about this as an experiment, an innovation innovation. and thinking about how we can develop a better innovation system not just for aids, but for health and beyond health for research more broadly. and i just want to reiterate that in thinking about the innovation system, there are a couple of other parts. the patent system will continue to play some role in, for instance, ideas that we haven't even thought about. in health the price system is particularly well suited because we have a more well-formulated notion of what we need and, therefore, it's a particularly effective in that area. some other areas where, for instance, in climate change it can be particularly effective. we know what we need in terms of more efficient batteries.

so there are certain areas where the price system is very well suited, other areas where the patent system may still play a role. and the third really important part is government-funded research itself. that has been very effective in the area of health, nih, nsf. and that in thinking about allocation of resources to prizes and to innovation, across innovation one has to balance that, all three of these components of our innovation system. and then more particularly in the area of health, one of the points that was referred to earlier was that our system of testing is a very costly one. drugs to be made available have to go through a set of tests. there's a lot of belief that that testing system is inefficient. and it certainly raises problems of conflicts of interest

because, typically, the drug company does it own testing, and we know some very -- >> a portion of a hearing we aired earlier on our companion network, c-span3. it's available to see in it entirety in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. and now live to coverage of the u.s. senate. senators returning from their weekly party meetings this afternoon. they're expected to complete work on extending the export-import bank charter, votes on amendments and final passage expected shortly after they gavel back in. also possible work on extending student loan subsidies. live, now, to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. conrad: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized. mr. conrad: i ask consent that following leader remarks on

wednesday, may 16, the senate proceed to the consideration of motions to proceed to the following budget resolutions listed below en bloc: calendar number 357, senate con resolution 41, calendar number 354, h. con. resolution ^1 12, senate concurrent 37, calendar number 384 had senate concurrent resolution are 42, and calendar number 395, senate concurrent resolution 44. that there be six hours of debate on the motions to proceed equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that upon the use or quleelding back of time, the senate proceed to vote on the five motions to proceed in the order listed above, that there be two minutes equally divided between the votes, and that all after the first vote be ten-minute votes, and the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table. notwithstanding the adoption of any motion to proceed, the senate proceed to the remaining votes on motion to proceeds. further, at the conclusion of these votes, the senate resum consideration of the budget resolution if a motion to proceed is adopted. if no motion to proceed has been adopted, the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. there hasn't been a budget passed here in this congress and in this house in over three years. i would argue that the exercise we have ending tomorrow will have no substantial differences. i don't think there's anyone in america that believes that we'll have a budget at the end of tomorrow. the congressional budget act of 1974 requires congress to pass a budget by april 15. so with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that request of the leader be

modified so that s. 1981, the no budget, no pay act, be automatically discharged from the homeland security and government fairs committee, the bill be immediately placed on the calendar. when the senate proceeds to the budget votes meptioned in the leader's request, the senate also vote on the motion to proceed to s. 1981, under the same terms and conditions of the other budget votes. mr. conrad: mr. mr. president? the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. conrad: no. objection has been heard on our side. the presiding officer: there is objection to the modification. is there objection to the original request? without objection, so ordered. mr. conrad: mr. president, just on the note that the gentleman raised, i want to make clear -- i've heard over and over no budget resolution has passed in 100 days.

what has not been said is that instead of a budget resolution last year, the senate and the house passed the budget control act. the budget control act is not a resolution. it is a law. a resolution, as all members know, is purely a congressional document. never goes to the president for his signature. last year instead of a budget resolution, this body and the other body passed legislation called the budget control act that set a budget, budget limits, spending limits for this year and next. actually, it went even further. it set ten years of spending caps. a budget resolution usually only sets one year of spending caps. so, mr. president, i want to make clear that instead of a budget resolution being passed

last year, the house and the senate passed the budget control act to set spending limits for this year and next rand for the eight years beyond. in addition, the budget control act established a supercommittee and gave them special authority to reform the tax system and the entitlement system. and said that if they could come to an agreement, they would not face a filibuster. on a simple majority, we could reform the tax system and the entitlement system here in the united states senate. and the budget control act further said, if the special committee does not agree to reform the tax system, to reform the entitlements, there will be an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts put in place over and above the $900 billion of

cuts put in place by the budget control act through spending caps for ten years. that is a total, mr. president, because the special committee did not agree, of over $2 trillion of spending cuts that are now in law as a result of the budget control act. that is the largest spending cut package in the history of the united states. and it's law. and it's law because of the budget control act passed last year. now, my colleagues can go and shout 2 fro it from the rooftops they've done, that the congress hasn't passed a budget resolution in 1,000 days. but they're not telling the whole story. they're not telling people that instead of a resolution, the

house and the senate passed a law. a law is stronger than any resolution. a resolution is purely a congressional document. a law has to be signed by the president of the united states. and the budget control act was passed by the senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote, passed by the house, signed by the president of the united states. and it sets the budget limits for this year and next, and it goes beyond that. it sets ten years of spending caps saving $900 billion. and because the special committee could not agree to reforming the tax system and the entitlement system, it put in place another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts that are now in law. that is a total of over $2 trillion of spending cuts.

mr. president, let me just say, what we don't have is the longer-term plan that the budget control act hoped would come about as a result of the work of the special cheat. so that's work we still need to do. but nobody should be under any misimpression or misunderstanding that we don't have spending limits in place for this year and n and in fact for all of discretionary spending, spending limits in place for the whole of the next ten years. that's a fact. now, tomorrow we're going to have a chance to debate fundamental issues of where the resources of the united states go. but we are in a different situation than we thunderstormally woulthundersto, because the budget control act is in law. we know what the appropriators

can spend for this year and the next. that's locked in. and we will then have a chance to debate tomorrow longer-term plans. and i'll be interested to see what some of our colleagues say. -- say about some of the truly extraordinarily extreme budget plans that are being offered by my colleagues on the other side, plans to eliminate chair in two eliminate medicare in two years, plans to cut social security benefits by 39%, plans to have trillions of dollars of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and statemenat thesame time cut edun spending, cut foreign assistance by 60%. mr. president, plans to cut spending beyond the budget control act, limitations by

another $2 trillion. mr. president, we are going to see from some of my colleagues on the other side truly extreme plans. and i hope they will be voted down tomorrow. and i hope that we will be able to make clear to the american people with the budget control act law that passed last year instead of a budget resolution that there are spending caps in place for this year and next, and the eight years beyond. mr. president, tomorrow will be an interesting day. to discuss different members' views of the future, the fiscal future of this country. make no mistake, we need to come together on a long-term plan to get us back on track. mr. president, i was part of the bowles-simpson commission, in fact, it was the idea of senator gregg and myself to have

such a commission. i voted for the findings to save more than $4 trillion. mr. president, i was part of the group of six that spent an entire year trying to find a way to implement bowles-simpson. so i am fully prepared to have this debate and this discussion. i am eager for us to come together around a plan to get us back on track. but it's going to require all sides to get out of their fixed positions. mr. president, that's probably unlikely right before an election, but it needs to happen before the end of this year. i'm very hopeful that bowles-simpson, that fiscal commission plan, serves as a good example of where we might find common ground. both sides, all sides getting out of their fixed position to reach an agreement to get our country back on track. i thank the chair and yield the floor.

ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call is dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i yield back all time. the presiding officer: without objection. all time is yielded back. under the previous order, the question is on amendment 2100. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: sthi

vote:

#

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to change their votes or to vote? hearing none, on this vote the yeas are 12 and the nays are 87. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 2101 to be offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. paul. the senator from kentucky. please let's have order. mr. paul: i'd like to call up amendment 2101.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 2101. at the appropriate place insert the following -- mr. paul: i'd like to ask consent that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: first -- the presiding officer: please, order so that the gentleman may be heard. mr. paul: first we borrow billions of dollars from china, india, saudi arabia, and then we loan it back to then again. republicans rightly complain that we're sending taxpayer money to the president's major donors. that's solyndra and brightsource. now republicans need to be consistent and say we're not going to send ex-im loans to even bigger companies who are even more profitable. if it is wrong for the government to choose winners and send your money to corporations, we should say it's wrong and we should vote against this. anybody remember the president threatening to increase taxes on corporate jets?

ex-im bank going to increase the loans for corporate jets tenfold. my amendment will stop the charade. my amendment will stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas to countries who we already are borrowing money from. it makes no sense -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, this amendment is simply another attempt to gut the export-import financing that u.s. manufacturers use to increase sales of their product around the globe. the amendment would prohibit u.s. exporters from using the financing to any country that owns u.s. debt. so basically we're saying we're going to prohibit u.s. manufacturers who make good products from helping to sell those products in places like china and others just because of their amount of u.s. debt. this is about job creation in america for a program that actually generates money to our

treasury and helps us pay down the deficit. we should be helping all u.s. manufacturers sell all around the globe and create jobs here at home. i urge my colleagues to oppose the paul amendment. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, on this vote, the yeas are 9, the nays are 89. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 2102 offered by the senator from tennessee, mr. corker. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president.

this amendment, the most important thing this amendment does is establish capital in the ex-im bank. right now the way the ex-im bank is set up, it only has to hold $1 billion worth of capital against $140 billion in loans. that is a leverage ratio of 140- 1. the presiding officer: please, let the gentleman be heard. mr. corker: this body spent a tremendous amount of time in a bipartisan way to make sure that the financial institutions of our country had proper capital ratios. this amendment establishes a 10% capital reserve for the ex-im bank. these loans by their definition are more risky than what the private sector would make. and that's why the sponsors are trying to extend the ex-im bank. so the very least we can do as a responsible body is at least cause them to have the

appropriate capital reserved against the loans that they are making which are more risky by definition than the private sector is making. i hope this will receive a strong bipartisan vote. my guess is the house would -- ?ivment. the presiding officer: the senator -- thank you. the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, this amendment would force the ex-im bank financing to increase its reserves by nearly 400% to maintain that 10% ratio. basically we already have a vote that audits with third-party accountants,o.m.b. and a bank inspector general reviewing this. this amendment would take away from money that actually goes to the treasury. this ex-im bank has generated $3.7 billion for taxpayers since 2005. my colleague would rather have that put aside as opposed to helping us pay down the deficit. so it has a reserve ratio that's

worked for decades, works successfully and i like the fact that it helps us pay down the deficit. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the corker amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment number 2102. mr. corker: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: sthi

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 36, the nays are 62. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 2103 offered by the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter. mr. vitter: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator louisiana. may we please have order. mr. vitter: mr. president, this amendment is very simple. it simply says, if we're going to have the u.s. taxpayer, through the ex-im bank, finance and guarantee and loan out money to traditional energy projects around the world, maybe we should have the same policy and the same help for u.s. projects producing u.s. energy here at home. that's pure and simple what it's all about. this isn't a theoretical concern. a year ago president obama traveled to brazil to praise the development of their offshore industry to give them u.s. taxpayer help through the ex-im bank. but policies this this country were doing exactly the opposite, hurting u.s. activity to produce u.s. energy, to produce u.s. jobs. so if you want to create that reasonable, fair playing field to promote u.s. jobs here at home, too, please support this amendment.

nor senatoa senator: mr. presid? the presiding officer: the snoer from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, the senator from louisiana has the right intentions but this amendment would truly be a vote against u.s. jobs and manufacturing. the presiding officer: please, order. mr. udall: it would wrongly target renewable energy manufacturing. it would threaten millions of dollars in export of u.s.-made products at a time when we should be seeking to expand these markets overseas. and if you look particularly at the wind industry, it's already suffering because we haven't had the courage to extend the production tax credit ford wind. and it has bipartisan support. so we've got to pass that production tax credit immediately. but in the meantime, let's not create a double whammy and pass the vitter amendment. without question, that sector is expanding dramatically. and it is the source of a lot of

jobs in my state and i think in every state? thlet's export, let's not limit that possibility. the vitter amendment would do just that. i urge you to vote against the vitter amendment. the presiding officer: the goo's time has expired. the question is on amendment number 2103. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

sro*eft vote: vote:

proeupb -- the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? hearing none, on this vote the yeas are 37. the nays are 61. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 2104 offered by the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey. the senate will be in order. mr. toomey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. there's two things we know about reauthorizing ex-im bank. we know our taxpayers are subject to a risk for which they're not fairly compensated in the sense that ex-im necessarily systematically underprices the risk. that's precisely why a borrower goes to them. the other thing we know is it's unfair to a domestic competitor that can't obtain the financing at a same rate that a foreign company can. we're told that we should do this anyway because everyone else does it, because all of our competitors around the world, they subsidize their exports. so, madam president, i would suggest the logical conclusion here is we should work to phase

out export subsidies all around the world. that's what this amendment does. it reauthorizes ex-im. it lifts the limit of the borrowing cap but makes it contingent on the administration beginning a process of negotiating a phaseout of export subsidies and makes the second increase in the lending cap contingent on an actual agreement that will over time get us all out of the business of risking taxpayer dollars in export subsidies. i think this is a sensible way. it will allow an adjustment to take place for those who are dependent on this bank, but it will get taxpayers off the hook in time. so i urge support. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: madam president, with all respect to my colleague, i think this is a nonsensical provision. it says the bank -- it says the bank can only make loans -- make more loans if there is an international agreement to terminate the bank. i know that in pennsylvania,

walk west finished 2010 with export sales over $17 million, a 61% increase because it obtained ex-im financing, and during the first two years it workforce grew from 80 to 150. i know that may not be a big story, but it is the story of the ex-im bank. so capping it and saying you're not going to give any more money for more loans until you negotiate an end to the bank i think is the wrong way to go. i urge my colleagues to defeat the toomey amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, on this scroat the yeas are 35, the nays are 63. under the previous order, under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the passage of the bill before us. a senator: madam president. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: i urge all senators to support final passage of the export-import bank reauthorization act. passage of this bill today will make sure american exporters will not be put at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors that nearly 300,000

american jobs will not be put at risk, and that the ex-im bank will continue to return hundreds of millions of dollars to the treasury. i want to thank many of my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, including ranking member shelby, senator warner, senator cantwell, and majority leader reid. i would also like to take this opportunity to recognize my staff for their hard work and important contributions to building bipartisan support for the reauthorization of the ex-im bank and in particular i want to say a special thanks to patrick grant, edwin healey, and charles yee, who did exceptional work in the committee to help us get to this point today. i'm also pleased that this bill which passed out of the banking

committee with unanimous bipartisan support served as a framework for the house bill before us today. once again, i strongly urge a yes vote on this important legislation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 396, h.r. 2072, an act to reauthorize the export-import bank export-import bank -- the export-import bank bank of the united states and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the bill. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: sthi

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 78, the nays are 20. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed.